Posted on 03/02/2011 3:00:58 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Sarah Palin criticized Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision that upheld a Kansas church’s right to protest at military funerals, a sign of where the potential 2012 presidential contender draws the line on free speech.
“Common sense & decency absent as wacko ‘church’ allowed hate msgs spewed @ soldiers’ funerals but we can’t invoke God’s name in public square,” Palin said via her Twitter account shortly after the Supreme Court announced the decision.
The Topeka-based Westboro Baptist Church, which has no affiliation to any other Baptist organization, sends members to picket funerals of military servicemen who were killed in action. The group’s members believe that the deaths are a punishment from God’s wrath, and carry offensive signs that read, “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “God Hates the U.S.A.”
Justice Samual Alito was the only justice to submit a dissenting opinion, saying that the First Amendment does not protect those who launch “vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate” during “a time of intense emotional sensitivity.”
In response to the ruling, the group is planning to “quadruple” the amount of protests held at military funerals.
Once again; the title of the article has little to do with what she said...
Ah, the keen legal mind of Sarah Palin.
Too bad Roberts, Scalia and Thomas disagree.
As do I. What they’re doing is protected speech, as disgusting as it is.
People need to SWAMP the funerals for these cult members...
When one of their scumbags die, THOUSANDS of people need to show up and tell them how much GOD hates them..
"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." – Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942
Spewing hatred towards the deceased at a funeral in front of his family qualifies as "Fighting Words" if anything does.
Maybe it will take an actual physical fight for the Supreme Court to realize this.
See #5.
Well said.
I somewhat agree with the decision. I abhor the WBC idiots. But, if they had cut their rights, who’s to say the left would at some point use the restriction of the 1st amendment against the tea partiers?
There are other ways to deal with WBC.
I agree. That is what the Westboro knows. They want so called Constitutional conservatives to come out against the Constitution.
Then they gotcha!
Yes, the decision was correct and CONSTITUTIONAL.
Justice Samual Alito was the only justice to submit a dissenting opinion, saying that the First Amendment does not protect those who launch “vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate” during “a time of intense emotional sensitivity.”
*******************************************************
Unfortunately this argument would outlaw The Daily Kos.
Although that might sound like a good idea it is one that, in the wrong hands, could do the same to FR. The 1st Amendment isn’t perfect but it is better than any alternative I can think of. It is bitter sweet for sure and sometimes you just have accept the fact that it allows people to legally be jerks. That’s the price we pay for what passes these days as freedom of speech.
There is no need to wait until one of them dies. Everyone has the same constitutional right to make their existence a living hell on a daily basis. People can picket their homes and the places they meet with the same ferocity they so routinely enjoy.
I wonder how they would react if a couple thosand people showed up at their homes every day.
I wonder what will happen if the deceased soldier would actually be a homosexual. Would it then be a hate crime?
Absolutely.
As hateful as it is, it is protected under the constitution.
Nothing says they cant suffer a fatal accident though.
That is an excellent response. Funny how conservatives won’t also use the Constitution in their favor.
Really good point.
You notice that too? All she said is Common sense and decency is missing as this church is allowed to spew their hate but some can’t invoke Gods name -— what the problem is I don’t know.
Good question. Then SCOTUS would have to defend an un-Constitutional law or strike it down.
It’s not free speech, it’s harrassment...plain and simple.
She did not say their speech should not be protected. The headline is a lie.
I hear you. Attended a funeral at the family’s request where these idiots showed up. 220 American flag holding pissed bikers and veterans. The idiots (3 women and a boy) did not hang around very long. The family never saw or heard the idiots..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.